Interactive method and system for teaching decision making

ABSTRACT

The present invention is directed to an interactive tool for teaching decision-making skills. The tool requires users to identify choice options and, for each choice option, relevant consequences, outcomes, goals, and/or driving forces. The tool further provides a methodology to evaluate the performance of the user.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application claims the benefits under 35 U.S.C.'119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. Nos. 60/203,514, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,528, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,527, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,525, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,524, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,526, filed May 11, 2000; and 60/207,714, filed May 26, 2000, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed generally to decision making and specifically to interactive tools for teaching decision making.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In all levels of society and across all age groups, people routinely use poor judgment in making decisions and consequently exhibit poor character. Although people are quick to see the freedom that choice brings, they all too often fail to see the corresponding responsibility that accompanies each and every choice they make. Most of their decisions are based either on a desire for instant gratification, convenience, peer approval, or avoidance of conflict. The increasing degree of mechanization and dehumanization of our lives—the disastrous byproduct of scientific and technical advancement—coupled with poor decision making have lead to a horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct or character of people today.

A variety of interactive tools have been developed for character building. A common approach is to provide the reader/viewer with an abstract concept, such as a value, then present an ideational story with some factual content which: (a) is related to the abstract concept, and (b) is presumably relevant to developing decision-making skills relating the abstract concept. This factual context is often inapplicable to the real life situations confronted by the reader/viewer (also denoted user herein) and therefore provides little guidance and little decision-making skill development. Moreover, the abstract factual concepts, individually and/or combined fail to show a methodology for making decisions.

A variety of interactive tools have also been developed for teaching decision making. A common approach is to list advantages and disadvantages associated with a decision. These approaches often fail to link the choices with specific goals or values. Moreover, such approaches are often too complicated for many individuals.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

These and other needs are addressed by the interactive tool(s) and method(s) of the present invention. The present invention provides a logical, structured approach to teaching users critical decision-making skills. The tool(s) and method(s) reinforce and/or develop developmental intelligence particularly in the areas of logico-mathematical thought, self understanding and the understanding of others. The tool(s) and method(s) are particularly useful in automated systems, such as computational systems.

In one embodiment, an interactive teaching method is provided that includes the steps of:

-   -   (a) referencing at least one factual context to a user;     -   (b) requiring the user to provide a listing of choice options         corresponding to the factual context(s);     -   (c) requiring the user to provide a listing of potential future         results corresponding to each choice option;     -   (d) requiring the user to provide a listing of goals that are         relevant to each choice option;     -   (e) requiring the user to identify one or more driving forces         relevant to one or more of the listed choice options; and     -   (f) evaluating at least one of the listing of choice options,         the listing of results, the listing of goals, and the identified         driving force(s).

In one configuration, the method further includes the steps of:

-   -   (g) requiring selection of a choice option; and     -   (h) requiring a rationale for the selected choice option; and         wherein the evaluating step includes the substep of assessing         the rationale.

The factual (or choice) context can be any suitable set of facts that require a choice to be made. For example, the set of facts may have personal relevance to the user, such as a real life situation in which the user has made or will make a choice; though having no personal relevance to the user, may have application or relevance to the user's surroundings and/or environment; or though having no personal relevance to the user or application to the user's environment, is useful in teaching the user decision making skills.

As will be appreciated, the “user” can be any individual or group of individuals, including computer users, students (whether at the primary, secondary, or pre- or post-educational levels), job skills trainees, participants in adult education, “at risk” juveniles, those incarcerated in detention facilities, and military personnel. The user can be of any age, with ages between 5 and 50 years being typical.

The listing of choice options is simply a listing of alternatives or possibilities generated, either internally or externally, by the choice context. The listing can include one or more choice options, depending upon the choice context.

The listing of results includes one or more results associated with each choice option in the listing of choice options. Results commonly include both long term results (or outcomes) or short term and/or immediate results (or consequences). Outcomes and consequences typically include both positive (as viewed by the user) and negative (as viewed by the user) results.

The listing of goals includes one or more goals that are relevant to each choice option. As will be appreciated, certain goals may be shared by a number of choice options. “Goals” refer to objectives of the user, such as to things the user wants to do or become (e.g., the desired end-states toward which effort is directed). Goals are the reasons outcomes derive their importance.

The driving force(s) of the user defines a hierarchy of the listed goals. As in the case of goals, one driving force may be shared by a number of goals and choice options. A “driving force” typically refers to the user's perceived identity; that is, the user's unique way of visualizing him- or herself. A driving force thus determines the relevant importance of each of the listed goals.

One or more of the listings is evaluated by any suitable technique to determine a level of performance of the user. In one configuration, the evaluating step can include the step of determining a test score for the user's performance in one or more of steps (b), (c), (d), and (e). For example, the number of choice options, results, goals, and/or driving forces can be counted, and the resulting number(s) compared to a predetermined ordering of numbers or grade scale for the corresponding list to determine a level of performance or test score. The evaluating step can also be performed using a more sophisticated approach such as by considering the number of choice options in the choice option listing, a level of sophistication of a choice option in the listing, and/or a number of choice options considered for selecting a most important choice option.

In one configuration, the evaluating step is performed by building and analyzing a decision tree or chain. The chain is formed by the following steps:

comparing the listing of choice options to a predetermined listing of choice options and corresponding codes to identify at least one listed choice option on the predetermined listing of choice options and a code corresponding thereto;

assigning the code to the at least one listed choice option;

comparing the rationale with the listings of results, goals, and driving forces to identify which of the listed results, goals and/or driving forces are in the rationale;

-   -   comparing the results, goals and driving forces in the rationale         with a predetermined listing of results, goals, and/or driving         forces and corresponding codes to identify the codes         corresponding to the results, goals and/or driving forces in the         rationale; and

determining the highest code level and the number of code levels in the rationale to form the decision chain.

When one or more of the listings is unacceptable, the user may be required to repeat one or more of the steps, depending on the level of sophistication of the user.

A counter can be used to monitor the number of iterations through the steps by a user whose listing(s) is found unacceptable. Thus, the method would include the steps of:

initializing a counter:

comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations;

when the counter at least one of equals and exceeds the predetermined number, then the user is failed; and

when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating the desired step(s).

To reinforce the decision model concepts in the mind of the user, the various steps can be repeated for a variety of choice contexts over the same or varying periods of time. In an illustrative configuration, only steps (a), (b), and (f) are repeated for a first time period, only steps (a) through (c) and (f) are repeated for a second time period, and only steps (a) through (d) and (f) are repeated for a third time period. The first time period precedes the second time period and the second time period precedes the third time period.

The interactive teaching method can include additional steps. In one configuration, the method includes the additional steps of:

requiring a list of choice distinctions for each listed choice; and optionally

evaluating the list of choice distinctions for each listed choice. A choice distinction is a defining characteristic or label for a corresponding choice option.

The invention has a number of advantages compared to existing decision-making tools. First, the present invention can provide a critical thinking curriculum that will help educators and parents develop citizens of better character by imbuing children with a decision-making framework that will provide them with an understanding of the decision-making process in their lives and the ability to make rational decisions directed toward achieving their personal goals. Second, the present invention can expand student awareness of the number of choices that are made, explicitly or implicitly, every day of their lives and of the range of choices available to them with regard to any significant decision. Third, the invention can increase student understanding of the critical determining characteristics of each choice option within the decision context and their relation to the likely short- and long term results of that choice. Fourth, the invention can help students identify and evaluate the causal relationships between their personal goals and the choices that they make across an array of decisions that range from simple everyday decisions to more complex types of risk- or reward-creating decisions. Fifth, the invention can develop students' abilities (and recognition of the need to take the time) to graphically map out the choice options with regard to any decision or problem context, including drawing of inferences with regard to their goals. Sixth, the invention can increase three important types of intelligence that can significantly accelerate a person's self-growth, namely logico-mathematical growth, self-understanding, and the understanding of others. Understanding the decisions of others and their behavior can lead to compassion for others. Seventh, the invention can address the decision-making defect from which many people suffer. Specifically, many people make poor decisions because such people focus on a shorter-term time horizon and/or mistakenly contrast two different defining elements of their choice options, namely a positive distinction of one choice option with a negative distinction of the other choice option, creating a biased contrast. The invention can use a bottom up (situation-based) approach employing real life scenarios with a decision making model, requiring the definition of causal implications of choice options. This is the most effective way in which this flaw in such thinking can be addressed. Conventional top down value or virtue approaches are too abstract for many users and are therefore not very effective. Eighth, the invention progressively introduces the user to the various pieces of the decision-making model, which reinforce the model in the mind of the user. Ninth, the invention uses the concept of “trade-off” in the decision-making model. Trade-off requires the user to compare and contrast higher order personal motivations or objectives (e.g., comparing positive elements with positive elements or negative elements with negative elements) in making a decision. Tenth, the invention permits an assessment of each lesson with regard to its effectiveness in changing an a priori or initial decision the individual or a group would make without the use of the invention. Eleventh, the invention permits the assessment of a variety of key facets of the depth of thinking of individuals with regard to their decision-making processes. For example, the present invention requires users to focus on a positive element, such as an outcome or consequence, associated with a choice option and to link the element to one or more relevant goals. This forces users to identify and apply driving forces to select a choice option.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A-D define a flowchart of a first embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a computation system that can be used with the flowchart of FIGS. 1A-D;

FIG. 3 depicts data structures associated with the methodology of the present invention;

FIG. 4 depicts a process for forming a decision chain;

FIG. 5 depicts a decision chain assembled using the process of FIG. 4;

FIGS. 6A-I depict various displays in connection with FIGS. 1A-D;

FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating the high level components of an embodiment of the present invention for presenting the critical thinking/reasoning instructional materials of the invention via a communications network such as the Internet; and

FIGS. 8A through 8H depict yet another embodiment of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIGS. 1A-D and 2 depict a first embodiment of an interactive algorithm according to the present invention. The processor 200 (FIG. 2) initially obtains a (via step 100, FIG. 1A) profile of the user from user information 204 (FIG. 2). The profile may be stored in memory 208 as shown and/or obtained from the user through a series of queries.

The user then is presented with a choice context (step 104 FIG. 1) from a plurality of choice contexts 212 in memory 208, and a counter “i” is initialized (step 108 FIG. 1A), e.g., set equal to one. The counter tracks the number of iterations through the loop defined by steps 112, 116, 120, 124 and 128.

The processor 200 can select which choice context to present using a random or pseudorandom number generator (in which event each of a plurality of choice contexts would be assigned a unique number or id) or a predetermined ordering of the choice contexts based on the user's profile information. The id can include a first field for setting, e.g. home, school and community, a second field for appropriate grade level, e.g. “45” means for grade levels four and five, and a third field for order of presentation of the context, e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc. The third field can be based on a number generator or a predefined ordering of presentation of the choice contexts. Simpler and/or more life relevant choice contexts are provided depending, for example, on the age or grade level of the user. The choice context can be presented to the user orally or visually using display 216 (FIG. 2) or a combination of the two. For example, the choice context can be a video presented on the display 216 with audio output. This approach is particularly useful for users that have a low level of reading skills.

The processor 200 then requests the user to input a list of choice options (step 112 FIG. 1A) corresponding to the choice context. The user inputs the list of choice options using any suitable techniques, including voice recognition techniques, a stylus or mouse with one or more screens displaying a list of possible choice options, a keyboard, and the like. The list may be entered by the user and identified by the processor 200 using key words and/or selected by the user from a list of possible choice options presented by the processor. An illustrative display when the list is entered manually by the user is shown in FIG. 6A. If the user selects the choice options from a list provided by the processor 200, the user may be asked to rank the selected choice options in order of importance and indicate the reason(s) why the user chose that option.

In one process configuration that is not shown in the figures, a timer could be set and the user given a predetermined amount of time in which to select the number of choice options arising from the choice context. The processor 200 would cease receiving new choice options when the predetermined amount of time had elapsed.

In the depicted process configuration, the user notifies the processor 200 when the list is completed, and an evaluator 220 (FIG. 2) assesses (in step 116 FIG. 1A) the list of choice options by any suitable technique. Particularly, where the user originates the choice options on the list, the evaluator 220 evaluates the list by the number of choice options on the list and compares the total number of choice options with a predetermined number or grading scale to determine a level of performance. Particularly, where the user selects the choice options on the list from a list provided by the processor 200, the evaluator 220 may evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected choice options and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings.

As part of the assessing step 116 (FIG. 1A), the processor 200 can also sort the various choice options into predetermined categories. For example, the choice options could be sorted based on the place in which the choice situation occurs (e.g., school, home, or community) and/or the relationship with the primary individual in the choice context (e.g., self, friends, parents, siblings, kids (non-friends) or adults). Symbols can be used for choice options rather than words (e.g., teeth to represent tooth brushing, a fist to represent fighting, etc.) A matrix can be constructed using one or more of the above classification systems. For instance, “places” can be on one axis and “relationship” on the other, and each choice context is placed in one cell of the matrix.

The number(s) of choice options in each classification can be used to evaluate the breadth or sophistication of the identified choice options. For example, the number of choice options in “non-self” categories could be an additional measure of performance used in any of the assessment steps discussed below.

If in decision step 120 (FIG. 1A) the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 determines in decision step 124 (FIG. 1A) if the counter i is equal to N, the predetermined maximum number of iterations through the loop of steps 112, 116, 120 and 128. If so, the processor 200 fails the user (step 122 FIG. 1A) and determines (step 123) whether to proceed with another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one (step 128) and again requests the user to provide a list of choice options associated with the choice context previously presented in step 104.

If in decision step 120 the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 132 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made based on the user's level of performance, profile, and the like. If the user has not yet performed to a certain level of performance or is required to complete successfully a certain number of selected choice contexts before proceeding, the user returns to step 104 and repeats the above steps with a different choice context. If the user has performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of choice contexts, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 136 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision making (via the steps commencing with step 137), or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110 (FIG. 1D). This determination is typically made based on the user's user profile. In one configuration, users in the first grade do not continue while users beyond the first grade continue on.

Assuming the user continues, the counter i is again initialized (step 137), and the processor 200 requests a list of choice distinctions (step 138) for each of the listed choice options provided previously in step 112. This step 138 can be performed in any of the ways noted above in connection with step 112 with choice distinctions being substituted for choice options. An illustrative display, when the list of choice distinctions is entered manually by the user, is shown in FIG. 6B.

Each choice option typically has at least one corresponding distinction. As noted, the distinction is the key characteristic that serves to label the positive and negative aspect(s) of each choice option. Although distinctions and results are often the same, it is important to start teaching users to label their choice options prior to defining the results of each.

The list of choice distinctions is assessed in step 139 using any suitable technique including those described above in connection with step 116 with choice distinctions being substituted for choice options. For example as in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by the number of choice distinctions on the list and compare the total number of choice distinctions with a predetermined number or grading scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the choice distinctions on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected choice distinctions and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the choice distinctions on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.

Alternatively or in addition to the techniques described above, the evaluating step (step 139) can analyze the total number of choice distinctions. The number is compared to a predetermined grading scale and a performance level determined.

If in decision step 140 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor in decision step 141 determines if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines in decision step 123 whether the user is to proceed with another test. If not, the processor increments the counter i by one (step 142) and again requests the user in step 138 to provide a list of choice distinctions associated with the choice context.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 143 whether a further choice context should be presented in step 104. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132. If the same choice context is to be used, then, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 144 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision making or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above. In one configuration, users in the second grade do not continue while users beyond the second grade continue on.

When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 145), and the processor 200 requests a list of consequences for each of the listed choice options provided to the user in step 146. This step 146 can be performed, as noted above in connection with step 112 and/or 138 with consequences being substituted for choice contexts and choice distinctions, respectively. Each choice distinction (and therefore each choice option) typically includes a number of corresponding consequences, both positive and negative. An illustrative display for manual entry of the list by the user is shown in FIG. 6C.

The list of consequences is assessed in step 147 using any suitable technique, including any of the techniques set forth above in connection with steps 116 and 139, with consequences being substituted for choice options and choice distinctions, respectively. As in the case of choice options and choice distinctions, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of consequences on the list and compares the total number of consequences with a predetermined grading scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the consequences on the list. This approach refrains from rendering any assessment or opinion whether the user's pathways are right or wrong. The approach causes users to think about choices and the meaning of choices to them personally in an open manner and not in a judgmental way. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected consequences and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the consequences on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.

If in decision step 148 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 determines in decision step 149 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines in decision step 123 whether or not to try another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one step 150, and again requests the user, in(step 146) to provide a list of consequences associated with the choice context presented in step 104.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 151 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132.

The processor 200 next determines in decision step 152 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above. In one configuration, users in the third grade do not continue while users beyond the third grade continue on.

When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 153), and the processor 200 requests (step 154) a list of outcomes for each of the listed choice options provided in response to step 112 and/or choice distinctions provided in response to step 138. As will be appreciated, each choice option typically corresponds to one choice distinction, and each choice distinction typically corresponds to more than one consequence and outcome. The step 156 can be performed using any of the techniques described above in connection with step 112 (with outcomes being substituted for choice options), step 138 (with outcomes being substituted for choice distinctions), and/or step 146 (with outcomes being substituted for consequences). An illustrative display when the list is manually input by the user is depicted in FIG. 6D.

The list of outcomes is assessed in step 155 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with steps 116 (with outcomes being substituted for choice options), 139 (with outcomes being substituted for choice distinctions), and/or 147 (with outcomes being substituted for consequences). As in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of outcomes on the list and compares the total number of outcomes with a predetermined number scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the outcomes on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected outcomes and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the choice distinctions on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.

If the user's performance is not acceptable in decision step 156, the processor determines in decision step 157 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines in decision step 123 whether or not to try another test. If not, the processor 200 increments 158 the counter i by one and again requests the user to provide in step 154 a list of outcomes associated with the choice context.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 159 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision diamond 132 with outcomes being substituted for choice options.

If the user has performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of selected choice contexts, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 160 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision making or complete the text and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above with outcomes being substituted for choice options. In one configuration, users in the fourth grade do not continue while users beyond the fourth grade continue on.

When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 161), and the processor 200 requests (step 162) a list of goals relevant to each of the listed choice options provided in step 112. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, and/or 154, with goals being substituted for choice options, choice distinctions, consequences, and outcomes, respectively. An illustrative display for manual entry of the list by the user is shown in FIG. 6E.

As will be appreciated, a selected goal can correspond to more than one choice and therefore to more than one choice distinction, consequence, and outcome. The results previously listed by the user are typically the bases for the identification of the relevant goals.

The users can be required to rank the goals for each choice option or among the goals listed for all of the choice options. The ranking can later be used in step 163 for evaluating the user's performance.

The list of goals is assessed in step 163 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with steps 116 (with goals being substituted for choice options), 139 (with goals being substituted for choice distinctions), 147 (with goals being substituted for consequences), and/or 155 (with goals being substituted for outcomes). As in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of goals on the list and compares the total number of goals with a predetermined number scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the goals on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected goals and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the goals on the list from a list provided by the processor.

If in decision step 164 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor determines in decision step 165 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 123 and determines in decision step 123 whether or not to try another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 166 and again requests the user to provide a list of goals associated with the choice context.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132 with goals being substituted for choice options.

The processor 200 next determines in decision step 168 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above with goals being substituted for choice options. In one configuration, users in the fifth grade do not continue to higher levels of decision-making instruction while users beyond the fifth grade do continue on.

When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 169), and the processor 200 requests or determines in step 170 a list of one or more driving forces relevant to each of the listed choice options provided in step 112. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, 154, and/or 162, with driving forces being substituted for choice options, choice distinctions, consequences, outcomes, and goals, respectively. An illustrative display for manual entry of the list by the user is shown in FIG. 6F.

The driving forces drive the ranking of the goals. The user will trade-off (or compare) one set of goals against another set of goals depending upon which driving force(s) are most important to the user. For example, assuming two competing goals in the choice context are “be responsible” versus “in control”, the associated driving force would be self esteem versus power, respectively. The user or the processor 200 would list the various driving forces linked to each of the goals in the listing of goals provided in step 162. As will be appreciated, the same driving force may be shared by multiple goals.

The users can be required to rank the driving forces for each choice option or among the driving forces listed for all of the choice options. The ranking can later be used in step 171 for evaluating the user's performance.

The list of driving forces is assessed in step 171 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with step 116 (with driving forces being substituted for choice options), 139 (with driving forces being substituted for choice distinctions), 147 (with driving forces being substituted for consequences), 155 (with driving forces being substituted for outcomes), and/or 163 (with driving forces being substituted for goals). As in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of driving forces on the list and compares the total number of driving forces with a predetermined number scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the driving forces on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected driving forces and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the driving forces on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.

If in decision step 172 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor determines in decision step 173 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines whether to proceed with another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 174 and again requests in step 170 the user to provide a list of driving forces associated with the choice context.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 175 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132 with driving forces being substituted for choice options.

If the user has performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of selected choice contexts, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 176 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above with driving forces being substituted for choice options. In one configuration, users in the second semester of the fifth grade do not continue while users beyond the second semester of the fifth grade continue on.

When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized 177, and the processor 200 requests the user, in step 178 to select a choice option from among the listed choice options provided by the user in step 112. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, 154, 162 and/or 170, with a selected choice option being substituted for choice options, choice distinctions, consequences, outcomes, goals, and driving forces, respectively. An illustrative display for this step is shown in FIG. 6G.

The choice option selected will typically be based on one or more driving forces as determined by the user. The driving forces cause the goals to be ranked in an order as determined by the user.

The users can be required to rank the various choice options in order of importance or attractiveness to the user. The ranking can later be used in step 179 for evaluating the user's performance.

The selected choice option is assessed in step 179 using any suitable technique. Typically, the criteria used in the assessment include a level of sophistication of the selected choice option, a level of judgment associated with the selected choice option, whether it is primarily defined by a positive or negative distinction and the degree to which the choice option is driven by self interest versus concern for others.

If in decision step 180 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 determines in decision step 181 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines whether to proceed with another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 182 and again requests the user to select a choice option from among the listing of choice options.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 183 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132.

The processor 200 then determines whether or not to continue (step 184) to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136.

When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized 185, and the processor 200 requests or determines a rationale for the selection of the choice option in step 186. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, 154, 162, 170, and/or 178. Illustrative sequential displays for this step are shown in FIGS. 6H and 6I.

The rationale and/or listed driving force(s) are assessed in step 187 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with steps 116, 139, 147, and/or 155.

A possible evaluation algorithm is shown in FIG. 3, which is discussed in detail below.

If in decision step 188 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 in decision step 189 determines if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines if the user wishes to or is required to take another test (decision step 123). If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 190 and again requests the user in step 186 to provide rationales for the choice options.

If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 191 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132.

If the user has not performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of selected choice contexts, the processor returns to step 104 and presents a new choice context to the user. Otherwise, the processor 200 determines a score and the test is completed in step 110.

FIGS. 4A-C depict a possible evaluation technique for assessing the choice option selected. The technique forms a decision chain and uses the chain to analyze a depth of analysis of the user.

Referring to FIG. 4A, the processor 200 compares 400 choice to a predetermined listing of choice options and corresponding codes. If in decision step 402 choice is in the predetermined listing, the processor 200 in step 404 assigns the corresponding code to the choice option.

If choice is not in the list or after the code is assigned, the processor determines in decision step 406 if i is equal to N, the number of choice options identified by the user for the choice context presented in step 112 (FIG. 1A).

If not, the processor increments i by one in step 408 and returns to step 400.

If so, the processor reinitializes i, or sets i equal to one in step 410, and gets (in step 412) the most likely positive result for choice according to the rationale input by the user that was identified by the user when the rationale was requested in step 186 of FIG. 1D (see FIG. 6I). The processor in step 414 then compares the most likely positive result to a predetermined listing 224 (FIG. 2) and corresponding codes.

The predetermined listing includes not only results, namely consequences and outcomes, but also distinctions, goals, and driving forces with corresponding codes. In one configuration, the code for a consequence is “CX”, for an outcome is “OX”, for a goal is “GYX”. and for a driving force is “DZX”, where “X” is the numerical identifier of a particular variable, Y is the type of goal, namely “S” for social, “F” for family, “T” for trait, “P” for physical, and “E”for enjoyment, and “Z” is the orientation of driving force, namely “E” for externally oriented and “I” for internally oriented. The predetermined listing can also include a category variable (“S” or “M”) as discussed below and/or an indicator of which items in the list are positive or negative. The indicator can simply be a “+” for positive or “−” for negative.

The appropriate code is assigned in step 416 to each of the most likely positive results wherein the code corresponds to pertinent code(s) referred to above.

In decision step 418, the processor 200 determines if i is equal to “N”. If i is not equal to “N”, the processor increments i by one in step 420 and returns to step 412. If i is equal to “N” then each choice option selected by the user has had a code assigned thereto. Subsequently, the processor initializes i (in step 422) and proceeds to step 424.

In step 424, the processor 200 gets the most likely negative result for choice option i, which was provided in step 186 of FIG. 1D (see FIG. 6I). The processor 200 compares in step 426 the most likely negative result to the predetermined listing and identifies the corresponding code wherein the code corresponds to pertinent code(s) referred to above. The appropriate code is assigned in step 428 to the most likely negative result.

As noted, the processor 200 determines in decision step 430, whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor increments 432 i by one and returns to step 426 and, if so, initializes i (in step 434) and proceeds to step 436.

In step 436, the processor 200 gets the most important positive rationale for choice option i, which was provided by the user in step 186 of FIG. 1D (see FIG. 6H). The processor 200 compares (in step 438) the most important positive rationale to the predetermined listing and identifies the corresponding code. The code is assigned 440 to the most important positive rationale.

The processor 200 determines in decision step 442 whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor increments i by one (step 444) and returns to step 436 and, if so, initializes i in step 446 and proceeds to step 448.

step 448, the processor 200 gets the most important negative rationale for choice option i, which was provided by the user in step 186 of FIG. 1D. The processor 200 compares in In step 450 the most important negative rationale with the predetermined listing and identifies the corresponding code. The code is assigned in step 452 to the most important negative rationale.

The processor 200 increments i by one in step 456 and determines in decision step 454 whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor returns to step 448 and, if so, initializes i in step 458 and proceeds to step 460.

In step 460, the processor determines the total number of levels for choice option i. This is done by first determining a numerical level equivalent to each of the assigned codes. Namely, the numerical equivalent of “C” is one, of “O” is two, of “G” is 3, and of “D” is four. Using these numbers, the processor can, for each choice option i, sum the numerical equivalents for the codes representing the most likely positive result, the most likely negative result, the most important positive rationale, and the most important negative rationale. Alternatively, the processor can count the number of different levels considered by the user. This is done by determining how many different numbers are represented for each choice in the variables, most likely positive result, the most likely negative result, the most important positive rationale, and the most important negative rationale.

In step 462, the highest code of the highest positive level for choice is determined. This is done, using the numerical equivalents noted above, by determining the highest numerical equivalent among the variables, most likely positive result and the most important positive rationale.

In step 464, the highest code of the highest negative level for choice is determined. This is done, using the numerical equivalents noted above, by determining the highest numerical equivalent among the variables, most likely negative result and the most likely negative rationale.

The processor 200 determines in decision step 466 whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor increments i by one in step 470 returns to step 460 and, if so, proceeds to step 474.

In step 474, the processor gets the choice option selected by the user in step 178 (FIG. 1D, see FIG. 6G).

In step 478, the processor then determines the category of the rationale for the choice option selected. In one configuration, this is done by including a category variable for each item in the predetermined list. The category variable is one of: “M” for moral or “S” for self. For grading purposes, an “S” is scored as a −1.0, and an “M” is scored as a 1.0 Based on the number, a score, score1, is determined in step 482.

A depth of analysis is determined in step 486. This may be done as described above. Alternatively, this may be done by comparing the rationales identified in step 186 of FIG. 1D. If a positive rationale selected by the user corresponds to a positive item associated with one of the choice options and another positive rationale selected by the user corresponds to a positive item associated with another choice option, the user is given only a score of “3”. If the user did not select a positive item from each of the different choice options but identifies a negative item from one of the choice options, the user is given a score of “2”. If the user selected positive and/or negative items from only one choice option and no items from the other choice option, the user is given a score of “1”. This score is score2 in step 490.

The test grade is determined in step 494 as a function of score1 and score2. The reason for scoring comparisons of items from different choice options more highly is that it reflects the ability of the user to apply the “trade-off” method, which is a key to making good decisions. Contrasting higher-order personal motives is at the heart of the trade-off method. In short, the “trade-off” method is to focus on competing outcomes and linking them to their respective goals (for each choice option). Choice is driven by a contrasting or trading-off between competing goals or driving forces. The ability of the choice option to satisfy the most important goal held by the user is preferably the basis for selecting that respective choice option. The above algorithms teach users to employ the method of “trade-off”. Score1 and score2 measure the aptitude of the user in identifying and contrasting the higher order elements (consequences to outcomes to goals to driving forces).

An example of a decision chain generated using the above technique is depicted in FIG. 5. “H453” is the code for the choice context. “H” representing home, “45” indicating that the context is applicable to users in the third and fourth grades, and the “3” being the unique identifier of the choice context. “1C” and “2C” are the codes for the two different choice options. The number to the left of the period (e.g. two, two, three, and two moving from left to right) refers to the highest level discussed at each stage. The number to the right of the period (e.g., two, two, two, and two moving from left to right) refers to the total number of levels discussed at each stage. The letters, “C” and “O” refer to consequence and outcome, respectively; in the phrase “Gt4”, “G” refers to goal, “t” to trait, and “4” to the identifier of the particular goal.

With reference to FIGS. 4A-C, the symbols “1C” 504 and “2C” 508 were generated in step 404; the symbols “C” and “O” 512 and “C” and “Gt4” 514 in steps 416 and 438; the symbols “C” and “O” 516 and “C” and “O” 520 in steps 428 and 452; “O” and “Gt4” 524 and 528 in step 462; “O” and “O” 532 and 536 in step 464; “1C” 540 in step 474; “2” 544 in step 482; step 490.

FIG. 3 is a hierarchical chart of the data structures for the above algorithm(s). The various labels are self-explanatory with the following exceptions: “MOSTLIKELY−RESULT” refers to the most likely negative result; “MOSTLIKELY+RESULT” refers to the most likely positive result; “MOSTLIKELY−RESULTCODE” refers to the most likely negative result code; “MOSTLIKELY+RESULTCODE” refers to the most likely positive result code; “TOTALNUMBERLEVELS−” refers to the total number of levels determined in step 460; “TOTALNUMBERLEVELS+” refers to the total number of levels determined in step 460; “HIGHESTLEVEL−” refers to the highest level determined in step 464; and “HIGHESTLEVEL+” refers to the highest level determined in step 462.

Although the interactive teaching tool is discussed above in the context of an automated architecture, it is to be expressly understood that the invention includes the manual (nonautomated) use of the above techniques by an instructor or teacher. The above techniques readily lend themselves to the classroom where students can interact with an instructor. In some applications, the above techniques are in fact more effective in the classroom than in an automated architecture. For example, the instructor may use the Socratic method to teach decision making skills according to the present invention. Additionally, the combination of homework assignments and decision-making concepts discussed above offer a very consistent and comprehensive approach to assessing student progress in developing critical decision-making skills. First, the ability to involve all members of the educational community with a common framework for choice behavior discussion can be invaluable. Second, the ability to understand and assess the decision-making ability of individual students, where complex value-laden trade-offs are involved, offers a very unique assessment opportunity for teachers. Third, the ability to use the results of these assessments for early-warning purposes, working toward possible intervention work by teachers and social service professionals, offers another fruitful opportunity. Fourth, the classroom supports the use of cooperative teaching techniques, in which students use teamwork and pro-social behavior to accomplish assigned tasks. Such cooperative teaching combined with a graphical summation of the decision-making process at the end of every class can reiterate and reinforce the concepts discussed by the groups, yield a common framework the students can build upon from year to year, build a pictorial representation that is more easily remembered by the students, and offer a decision-making framework that can be used in the class when analyzing individual behavioral situations.

FIGS. 8A-H depict another embodiment of the present invention. The figures show different screen displays for a simpler algorithm than that discussed above. In FIGS. 8C and 8D, only two consequences and outcomes are identified for each choice option. Unlike the previous embodiment, a comprehensive listing of consequences and outcomes is not provided by the user. The two positive and negative consequences and outcomes listed for each choice option represent the most likely consequences and outcomes for each option. In FIG. 8E, only two goals are identified for each choice option. Unlike the previous embodiment, a comprehensive listing of goals is not provided by the user. The positive and negative goals listed for each option represent the most likely positive and negative goals for each option. In FIGS. 8F, the user contrasts the listed goals, or performs a trade-off between the goals which he or she feels are most important. The user is also asked to indicate which goal is the most important to the user. The selections are indicated by the pointers. In FIG. 8H, the user is asked to identify the primary reason (or rationale) that he or she would decide to tell the truth (the choice option selected in FIG. 8G). As indicated by the pointer, the user chose (b).

In another embodiment, the decision chain is constructed by the following steps:

-   -   (a) determine a code corresponding to the choice context;     -   (b) determine a code corresponding to each listed choice option         i (where i is the number of each choice option);     -   (c) obtain a positive and negative response to the following         question: A what is the most likely good (+) thing or result and         bad (−) thing or result for each of the listed choice options?;     -   (d) obtain a positive and negative response to the following         question: A What is the likely future end result and why is that         important to you, for each of your good (+) and bad (−)         results?;     -   (e) read positive (+) response to question in (c) for each         choice option 1 and determine code corresponding thereto;     -   (f) read positive (+) response to question in (d) for each         choice option 1 and determine code corresponding thereto;     -   (g) read negative (−) response to question in (c) for each         choice option 1 and determine code corresponding thereto;     -   (f) read negative (−) response to question in (d) for each         choice option 1 and determine code corresponding thereto;     -   (g) repeat steps (e) through (f) for each choice option₁₃ i;     -   (h) determine code corresponding to choice option selected;     -   (i) determine code corresponding to rationale for choice option         selection; and     -   (i) determine score as set forth above based on whether positive         or negative items from each chain are contrasted by user.

Note that Exhibit A hereinbelow shows a representative embodiment of the instructional materials for assisting users in developing better critical thinking/reasoning skills related to choices they make. In particular, Exhibit A illustrates how the method of the present invention may be presented to children via specific factual contexts also provided therein.

An alternative embodiment of the present invention is shown in FIG. 7 wherein the invention is accessible through a communications network, and more particularly, the Internet and/or a public switched telephone network (PSTN). This figure shows only the high level components of this alternative embodiment along with arrows indicating the primary data and control flows between these components so that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand how to make and use the present embodiment of the invention. However, it is also worth noting that in order simplify FIG. 7, not all data and control flows between the illustrated components are shown. Additional data and/or control flows will be described hereinbelow. Accordingly, this embodiment of the invention includes an instructional server 704 (e.g., website) operatively connected to a communications network 708 (e.g., the Internet and/or a PSTN) for providing the critical thinking instructional materials corresponding to the method and system of the present invention. In particular, the instructional server 704 provides the following services:

-   -   a. Provides a network interactive embodiment of the present         invention.     -   b. Allows a user to download instructional sessions and         subsequently upload results therefrom         the instructional materials and the method of the invention may         be provided to network 708 users at corresponding user network         device/nodes (e.g., a personal computer having an Internet         browser) such as network device/node 712. Thus, in one         embodiment, such users may access the instructional materials on         line from the instructional server 704, wherein this server         retains and controls access to substantially all of the         instructional materials and the user responses therefrom.         However, in another embodiment, at least some of the         instructional materials and/or corresponding software therefor         may be downloaded from the instructional server 704 for at least         assisting the instructional server 704 in the presentation and         processing of both the instructional materials as well as user         responses thereto. Thus, in this latter embodiment, an         instructional client module 716 may be downloaded (or otherwise         provided) to facilitate user interaction with the present         invention. In particular, certain components of: the         presentation engine (described hereinbelow), the help module         (described hereinbelow), the level control (described         hereinbelow), the response timer (described hereinbelow), the         user response evaluator (described hereinbelow) as well as         versions of one or more of the instructional server 704         associated databases (described hereinbelow) may be incorporated         into the instructional client modules 716.

In at least some contexts where the instruction server 704 is utilized, users may be students (e.g., grades 1 through 6), or others who desire (or require) supervision and/or additional instruction in making reasoned choices such as the present invention facilitates. In such circumstances, there may be a supervisor/monitor/teacher (also denoted herein as merely a supervisor) that review the performance of users for which they have such responsibility, and for receiving alerts when one of their users appear to be experiencing difficulties that warrant informing the supervisor. Accordingly, such supervisors may communicate with the instructional server 704 through a supervisor/monitor/teacher network device/node 720 also operatively connected to the instructional server 704 via the network 708.

Regarding the instructional server 704, it includes a network interface 724 for receiving and transmitting information related to the instructional material and responses thereto on the network 708. The network interface provides network input from the users and supervisors to various program elements (e.g., cgi scripts, as one skilled in the art will understand) such as a purchasing interface 728, a user registration 732, and a user session controller 736, these being described hereinbelow.

Thus, regarding the purchasing interface 728, this component allows for the purchasing the use of the instructional materials, the software for providing the instructional material interactively, and related support (e.g., storage of user performances, supervisor alerts, statistical comparisons of user performances with other users, etc.). The purchasing interface 728 has the following inputs and outputs:

Inputs:

-   -   a. From supervisors/monitors/teachers: Requests to license the         instructional materials of the present invention, requests to         review license agreement     -   b. From the purchasing and accounting back office component 742         (described hereinbelow): Verification of purchase, instructional         materials access key code or other access identifier     -   Outputs:         -   a. To supervisors/monitors/teachers: Responses to requests             for information about the instructional materials; license             agreement information; instructional materials access key             code or other access identifier         -   b. To the purchasing and accounting back office component             742: Purchase information (e.g., credit card information             etc), type of license requested, duration of license, etc.

Note that such a purchase is a licensing agreement wherein the licensee is allowed to use the instructional materials and utilize the related services provided by the instructional server 704 for a specified time period (e.g., one semester, one year, etc), for a specified maximum number of users (e.g., 20 students), a maximum number of computers, and/or for specified levels of critical thinking presentations and interactions (e.g., the higher levels of selecting choice options, providing rationales may be provided at different costs from the lower levels). Note that the purchasing interface 742 may be accessed by a user, a supervisor or other (e.g., school) administrator for purchasing a use license to the invention for one or more users. Moreover, as indicated above, the purchasing interface 728 communicates with the purchasing and accounting backoffice 740 for obtaining license payment and for providing access identification for accessing the services of the instructional server 704. Note that the assess identification is then output to the purchaser via the purchasing interface 728 and the network 708 to the purchaser. Moreover, the purchasing and accounting backoffice components 740 also generate validation information for use in validating each user access under such a license (as described hereinbelow). Furthermore, such validation information is stored in the purchasing and licensing database 742.

Regarding the user registration component 732, this component receives the assess information supplied to a purchaser for thereby registering one or more users so that these users can utilize the services of the instructional server 704. Accordingly, the user registration 732 communicates with the purchasing and accounting backoffice components 740 for verifying that the access identification supplied is valid and allows the number users (at their corresponding critical thinking levels) desired to be registered. Note that in one embodiment, a supervisor (e.g., a teacher) may register entire class. In addition to the names of the users provided to the user registration 732, this component may also be supplied with additional user information for thereby storing a data profile of the user(s) in the user profile database 744. In particular, the following additional information may be requested about a user and stored in the user profile database 744:

-   -   (a) age,     -   (b) grade,     -   (c) school type,     -   (d) ethnicity,     -   (e) grade point average,     -   (f) history,     -   (g) scores on standardized tests, and     -   (h) parental status.

Regarding the user session controller 736, this component substantially controls and monitors an instructional session with a user. In particular, the user session controller 736 requests and receives user validation information that identifies at least the user requesting the instructional services of the server 704. Note that such user validation information may be a user specific password (input, e.g., by a teacher or the user), or the user's name together with a code that can be used to identify the purchased license which permits the user to access the instructional server 704. In either case, however, the controller 736 activates the user validation component 748 for determining the validity of the user's input identification, and whether the user is allowed to access the requested instructional materials. Note that the user validation 748 accesses at least one of the user profile database 744 and the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 752 to verify the user's identity, and in some embodiments, to verify that the user has access to the instructional materials requested. Additionally, the user session controller 736 provides the following functionality:

-   -   (a) Determines type of interaction (e.g., audio, video or         streaming audio/video) to be supplied to a user.     -   (b) Performs the steps of FIGS. 1 by activating other server         modules.     -   (c) Communicates with the factual context selector 756 for         obtaining the identity of a (next) factual context to present to         the user during an instructional session.     -   (d) Communicates with the response timer 760 to obtain one or         more time intervals within which the user must give a response         to an instructional session question.     -   (e) Communicates with the level controller 764 to determine the         deepest level of critical thinking analysis to which it is         desired that the user have presented thereto.     -   (f) Outputs the factual context identity, the deepest level of         critical thinking and response time data to the presentation         engine 768 so that this engine is able to provide an appropriate         presentation to the user.     -   (g) Outputs incomplete sessions to the session archives database         772 (e.g., user terminates a session prematurely).     -   (h) Outputs user performance statistics to the performance         statistics database 776 (described hereinbelow).     -   (i) Receives instructional material responses from the user and         communicates with the user response evaluator 780 to determine         whether the user provided an appropriate response which will         allow the user to, e.g., progress through additional         instructional materials at a deeper level.     -   (j) Determines, using the results from the user response         evaluator 780, whether the user must continue with the current         material, has completed the current session successfully,         proceed to a deeper level, or has failed to properly analyze the         current factual context. Note that FIG. 1 and its related         descriptive text hereinabove is illustrative of the processing         performed here.     -   (k) Communicates with the supervisor alert module 784 to alert a         supervisor when a user (for which the supervisor has         responsibility) appears to be having persistent difficulties;         the alert may be real time during the user's session or after         the user has terminated the session; moreover, such an alert may         be by email and/or a graphical alert pushed to the         supervisor/monitor/teacher's network node 720.     -   (l) Retrieves partially completed instructional materials from         the session archives 772 using data identifying the user so that         the partially completed materials can be continued substantially         at the point where the materials was prematurely terminated.

Regarding the factual context selector 756, this component may include a random or psuedo-random number generator for identifying a next factual context for presentation to a user. However, in at least some embodiments, the factual context selector 756 accesses a table of factual contexts descriptors, wherein this table is stored in the factual contexts database 788, and the table describes the factual contexts also stored therein. In particular, since it is an aspect of the invention to present factual contexts in different environmental and relational settings (e.g., family, school, community, friends, strangers, vacations, fables, etc.), the descriptor for each stored factual context may categorize each factual context according to its environmental and relational settings. Accordingly, the factual context selector 756 may randomly (or psuedo-randomly) select a factual context from a particular category dependent upon a user's selection of factual context category, and/or a supervisor's selection of a factual context category. Moreover, such a selection of a factual context may be performed by specifying and/or determining the goals and/or the driving forces that are involved in the choice option trade-offs presented by the selected factual context. Additionally, note that in some embodiments the factual context selector 756 may access information identifying a predetermined order that certain factual contexts are to be presented to the user. In particular, such predetermined orders of factual contexts may be input to the instructional server 704 and stored in the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 792 (which is described hereinbelow). For example, a supervisor (e.g., a teacher) may input an ordered list identifying factual contexts, wherein the list ordering is the order in which the identified factual contexts are to be provided to each student for which the supervisor is responsible. Alternatively, such an ordered list may be referenced in the user profile data for each of the students.

Regarding further details of the factual contexts database 788, this database also includes, for each factual context stored therein, the corresponding choice options, goals, driving forces and rationales as described hereinabove.

Regarding further details of the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 792, this database also includes bidirectional associations between the stored data identifying each supervisor and the users for which the supervisor is responsible. Additionally, this database includes data for contacting each supervisor (e.g., network address, email address, and/or phone number), and under what conditions the supervisor should be alerted regarding user difficulties.

Regarding the level controller 764, in addition to determining the deepest level of critical thinking analysis for which it is desired that instructional material be presented to the user, this component determines an appropriate initial level at which a user commences an instructional session. Thus, the level controller 764 accesses the user's profile from the user profile database 744 for determining therefrom the levels at which the user has succeeded and the levels that the user has experienced difficulties. Additionally, the level controller 764 may access the session archives 772 to retrieve information about a previous unfinished instructional session (query information for performing the retrieval being stored in the user's profile). By gathering such information, the level controller 764 determines an appropriate level in the instructional material for the user to continue in a new session. In particular, the level controller 764 may start the user at a level lower than he/she has previously reached for thereby reinforcing previous levels and also providing initial successes for the user at beginning of an instructional session for thereby motivating the user to continue.

Regarding the presentation engine 768, this component provides the majority of the user output during an instructional session. In particular, the presentation engine 768 provides the following functionality:

-   -   (a) Presents instructional materials to users in a desired         medium, the mediums include: (i) graphical (ii) audio, (iii)         streaming audio/video.     -   (b) Outputs synthesized speech of substantially any text either         on user demand (e.g., user clicks on text), or automatically         with substantially all textual output. Note that for children         having poor or no reading skills such synthesized speech may         allow the instructional materials to be effectively presented to         such children.     -   (c) Outputs email to users and/or supervisors regarding, e.g.,         user performance evaluations, passwords needed to access         instructional materials, and notices of new instructional         materials.

Note that the presentation engine 768 receives output requests from various components such as the user registration 732, the user session controller 736, the supervisor alert 784, and the help module 796. Accordingly, each input to the presentation engine 768 identifies or provides the data for outputting together with an indicator identifying one or more output mediums (as in (a) above) in which the output is to be presented to a user or supervisor. Note that the presentation engine 768 in general retrieves the output data and/or a template thereof from one of the databases accessible by the instructional server 704. In particular, the user session controller 736 provides the presentation engine 768 with an identifier for accessing the next portion of an instructional session related to a factual context. Thus, the presentation engine uses this identifier to retrieve factual context data from the factual contexts database 788 for outputting to a user. The presentation engine 768 also uses message identifiers from the supervisor alert 784 and the help module 796 to retrieve the corresponding messages from the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 792 and the help database 800 respectively, wherein the help database provides graphical, textual and animated help to users requesting such further assistance (as will be described further hereinbelow). Additionally, the presentation engine uses input from the user registration 732 to provide user registration presentations (e.g., visual and/or audio presentations) to a user or supervisor so that he/she may register with the instructional server 704. Further, the presentation engine 768 uses input from the user registration 732 for emailing information to a user or supervisor such as registration codes and/or passwords.

Regarding the help database 800, this database stores help and user instructional assistance information that is accessed by the help module 796 in response to a user request. In particular, the help module 796 provides the following functionality:

-   -   (a) Receives requests for assistance, e.g., such input may be         data derived from the speech recognition unit 804 in response to         speech input by a requester.     -   (b) Accesses the help database 800 for appropriate instructional         materials and help files for appropriate responses to help         requests     -   (c) Outputs such appropriate responses to the presentation         engine for presentation to the requester in the medium         designated by the requester

Note that the combination of the help database 800 and the help module 796 may provide context sensitive help to a user. For example, these components may provide the user with help information that is dependent upon the user's profile data (e.g., the reading level of the user), whether this is the first or successive request for help related to the same condition, and the level of critical thinking that the user has achieved.

Regarding the user response evaluator 780, this component evaluates user responses to the instructional materials, e.g., for determining whether users can appropriately perform critical reasoning at the level being presented. In particular, the user response evaluator 780 provides the following functionality:

-   -   (a) Receives input from the user session controller 736         indicative of a user response to the instructional materials.     -   (b) Evaluates user responses according to the steps of FIGS.         4A-4C; i.e., identifications of the user's choice options are         obtained, and the corresponding user input results, and         rationales are compared for consistency with predetermined lists         results and rationales corresponding to the goals and driving         forces also provided by the user.     -   (c) Stores and retrieves runtime session instructional         information from the instructional session runtime database 808,         wherein this database includes descriptions of instructional         concepts, corrective messages for the user, the status and         performance of each user while he/she is interacting with the         instructional materials via the server 704.     -   (d) Performance data is output to the user session controller         736.

Regarding the supervisor alert 784, this component determines an appropriate message to send to a supervisor regarding difficulties a user is having with instructional materials, wherein the supervisor is responsible for monitoring the user's progress. More particularly, the supervisor alert 784 performs the following tasks:

-   -   (a) Receives input from the user session controller indicating         that a user is having difficulties in a particular instructional         session     -   (b) Uses an identification of the user to obtain the user's         supervisor/monitor/teacher's identification (e.g., network node         address and/or email) from the database 792 and/or the user         profile database 744.     -   (c) Uses an identification of the factual context, the level of         critical thinking at which the user is having difficulties for         retrieving an appropriate message from the instructional session         runtime database 808 to sent to the identified supervisor. Note         that such messages may include information specific to the         particular factual context with which the user is having         difficulty such as an identification of the factual context, its         category as it relates to environmental and relational settings.         Additionally, note that more than one supervisor may be alerted         regarding the difficulties a user is experiencing.

Regarding the statistics database 776, this database retains statistics on the effectiveness of the instructional materials of the present invention. For example, how many and/or how quickly do users progress through the critical thinking levels according age, background, ethnicity, and reading skills. Additionally, statistics may be retained on the effectiveness of individual factual contexts. For example, statistics may be determined as to whether the mastery of the critical thinking skills for a particular factual context is better or worst preparation for the mastery of critical thinking skills of a subsequent factual context.

Regarding the instructional session runtime database 808, this database stores various instructional session messages as well as the runtime status of each user instructional session.

Regarding the speech recognition unit 804, this component may be utilized with users that do not have sufficient computer skills to perform the instructional tasks otherwise. Moreover, user speech input may be particularly beneficial for users that are handicapped and unable to easily provide input by selection devices (e.g., a computer mouse) and/or a keyboard.

-   -   (a) Receives user input derived from speech input by the user;         this input can come via various networks such the Internet         and/or a public switched telephone network (PSTN). Such speech         input may be the primary technique of input for users with         impaired computer skills; e.g., children in grades 1 to 4.     -   (b) Outputs data corresponding to the speech; in one embodiment,         it is contemplated that the recognized input does not require         the speech recognition unit to identify words particular to a         particular factual context. Accordingly, this unit may need to         only recognize words that are common to substantially all         factual contexts such as numbers and/or letters for identifying         choices presented to the user. However, it is within the scope         of the present invention that the speech recognition unit may         also recognize words related to a particular factual context         that has been presented to the user. Accordingly, a list of such         words may be provided to the speech recognition unit to         disambiguate user spoken responses.

The foregoing description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. Furthermore, the description is not intended to limit the invention to the form disclosed herein. Consequently, variations and modifications commensurate with the above teachings, and the skill or knowledge of the relevant art, are within the scope of the present invention. By way of example, one or more of the steps in FIGS. 1A-D and/or 4A-C may be omitted as desired. By way of illustration, the series of steps to obtain from the user a list of choice distinctions may be omitted. Alternatively, the ordering of the steps in the figures can be altered. A way of illustration, the request to the user for a list of driving forces can follow the request for the selection of a choice option. Depending upon the profile of the user, one or more of the assessment steps can be skipped. For example, for a user who will provide each of the listings requested in steps 112, 138, 146, 154, 162, 170, 178, and 186, assessment steps 116, 139, 147, 155, 163, 171, and 179 can be omitted. In other words, only one assessment step would be used in this alternative embodiment. Various other displays may be used in connection with the above-described process. For example, the display can be progressive as the various lists are entered by the user. In other words, the display at any one step will display the information entered by the user in prior steps. The embodiments described herein above are further intended to explain best modes known for practicing the invention and to enable others skilled in the art to utilize the invention in such, or other, embodiments and with various modifications required by the particular applications or uses of the present invention. It is intended that the appended claims be construed to include alternative embodiments to the extent permitted by the prior art. 

1. An interactive teaching method, comprising: (a) referencing at least one factual context to a user; (b) requiring the user to provide a listing of choice options corresponding to the at least one factual context; (c) requiring the user to provide a listing of results corresponding to each choice option; (d) requiring the user to provide a listing of goals that are relevant to each choice option; (e) requiring the user to identify at least one driving force relevant to at least one of the listed choice options; and (f) evaluating at least one of: the listing of goals, the listing of results, the listing of goals, and the at least one driving force.
 2. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein the evaluating step is performed for each of the listings in steps (b) through (e).
 3. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein, when the at least one of the listings is unacceptable, requiring the user to repeat at least one of steps (b) through (g).
 4. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein, when the at least one of the listings is unacceptable, repeating steps (a) through (f) for a new factual context.
 5. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein steps (a), (b), and (f) are repeated for a plurality of factual contexts.
 6. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein step (a) includes the step of initializing a counter and further comprising, if the listing of choice options is unacceptable in step (f): comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations; when the counter at least one of equals and exceeds the predetermined number, failing the user; and when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating step (b).
 7. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein only steps (a), (b), and (f) are repeated for a first time period, only steps (a) through (c) and (f) are repeated for a second time period, and only steps (a) through (d) and (f) are repeated for a third time period and wherein the first time period precedes the second time period and the second time period precedes the third time period.
 8. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, further comprising after step (c) and before step (e): if the listing of results is acceptable in step (f), requesting a list of choice distinctions for each listed choice; and assessing the list of choice distinctions for each listed choice option.
 9. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein steps (d) through (f) are repeated for a plurality of factual contexts.
 10. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein step (c) includes the step of initializing a counter and further comprising, if the listing of results is unacceptable: comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations; when the counter at least one of equals and exceeds the predetermined number, failing the user; and when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating step (c).
 11. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein the listing of results includes outcomes and consequences.
 12. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein steps (e) and (f) are repeated for a plurality of factual contexts.
 13. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein step (d) includes the step of initializing a counter and further comprising, if the listing of goals is unacceptable: comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations; when the counter at least one of equals and exceeds the predetermined number, failing the user; and when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating step (d).
 14. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 13, further comprising: (g) requiring selection of a choice option; and (h) requiring a rationale for the selected choice option; and wherein the evaluating step includes the substep of assessing the rationale.
 15. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 14, further comprising: (1) determining a test score for the user's performance in one or more of steps (b), (c), (d), and (e).
 16. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein in step (f) the number of choice options is counted and compared to a predetermined ordering of numbers to determine a level of performance.
 17. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 1, wherein step (f) considers at least one of the number of choice options in the choice option listing, a level of sophistication of a choice option in the listing, and a number of choice options considered for selecting a most important choice option.
 18. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 14, wherein step(f) includes the step of: forming a decision chain.
 19. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 18, wherein the forming step includes the steps of: comparing the listing of choice options to a predetermined listing of choice options and corresponding code to identify at least one listed choice option on the predetermined listing of choice options and a code corresponding thereto; assigning the code to the listed choice option; comparing the rationale with the listings of results, goals, and driving forces to identify which of the listed results, goals and driving forces are in the rationale; comparing the results, goals and driving forces in the rationale with a predetermined listing of results, goals, and driving forces and corresponding codes to identify the codes corresponding to the results, goals and driving forces in the rationale; and determining the highest code level and the number of code levels in the rationale to form the decision chain.
 20. An interactive teaching method, comprising: (a) presenting at least one factual context to a user, wherein said factual context provides a situation wherein one or more possible behaviors of a participant in said factual context is identified by the user; (b) first requesting the user to provide a listing of one or more choice options corresponding to the at least one factual context, wherein each of said choice options includes one of said possible behaviors; (c) second requesting the user to provide, for each of at least some of said choice options, a corresponding listing of results including both user perceived positive and negative results, wherein each result R is a response to identify a condition that the user believes has a likelihood of occurring if one of said choice options, for which said result R corresponds, occurs; (d) third requesting the user to provide, for each of at least some of said choice options, a corresponding listing of goals that are relevant to said choice options, wherein each goal G is a response to identify an end state achieved by the participant when effort by the participant is directed toward having one of said choice options, for which said goal G corresponds, occur; (e) fourth requesting the user to identify at least one driving force relevant to at least one choice option C of the choice options, wherein said driving force is a response to identify a ranking in said goals on said listing of goals corresponding to said choice option C, said ranking being according to a user perceived importance of the goals to the participant; and (f) evaluating one or more decision making related skills of the user, wherein an outcome from said evaluating step is dependent upon at least one of: (i) a rationale provided by the user for choosing a preferred one of said choice options, wherein said step of evaluating includes a step of determining whether a positive result from at least two of said listings of results are identified in said rationale; (ii) a step of encoding, for a response by the user to at least one of said steps of(c) through (e), at least one of: a highest level of decision making reasoning in said response, and a number of levels of decision making reasoning in said response, wherein said levels, in ascending order, include: (1) a results level corresponding to conditions that the user believes has a likelihood of occurring if one of said choice options occur; (2) a goal level corresponding to an end state achieved by the participant when effort by the participant is directed toward having one of said choice options occur; and (3) a driving force level corresponding to a ranking of goals of said choice options, said ranking being according to a user perceived importace of the goals to the participant.
 21. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein the encoding step is performed for each of the listings in steps (b) through (d).
 22. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein, when at least one of: (i) said listing of choice options, (ii) one of said listings of results, (iii) one of said listings of goals is determined to be unacceptable in said evaluating step, requiring the user to repeat at least one of steps (b) through (e).
 23. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 22, wherein, said step of requiring includes repeating steps (a) through (f) for a different factual context.
 24. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 2, wherein steps (a), (b), and (f) are repeated for a plurality of factual contexts.
 25. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein step (a) includes a step of initializing a counter and further comprising, if the listing of choice options results in said evaluating step determining a value indicative of a need for remediation in one of the decision making related skills: comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations; when the counter at least one of: equals and exceeds the predetermined number, recoding that the user has not demonstrated at least one of the decision making related skills; and when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating step (b).
 26. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein only steps (a), (b), and (f) are repeated for a first time period, only steps a) through (c) and (f) are repeated for a second time period, and only steps (a) through (d) and (f) are repeated for a third time period and wherein the first time period precedes the second time period and the second time period precedes the third time period.
 27. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, further comprising after step (c) and before step (e): if the listing of results is acceptable in step (f), requesting a list of choice distinctions for at least one listed choice option; and assessing the list of choice distinctions for said at least one choice option.
 28. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein steps (d) through (f) are repeated for a plurality of factual contexts.
 29. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein step (c) includes a step of initializing a counter and further comprising, if one of the lists of results in said evaluating step determining a value indicative of a need for remediation in at least one of the decision making related skills: comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations; when the counter at least one of equals and exceeds the predetermined number, recoding that the user has not demonstrated at least one of the decision making related skills; and when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating step (c).
 30. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein the listing of results includes outcomes and consequences.
 31. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein steps (e) and (f) are repeated for a plurality of factual contexts.
 32. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein step (d) includes the step of initializing a counter and further comprising, if the listing of goals results in said evaluating step determining a value indicative of a need for remediation in at least one of the decision making related skills: comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations; when the counter at least one of equals and exceeds the predetermined number, identifying that the user has not demonstrated at least one of the decision making related skills; and when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating step (d).
 33. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 32, further comprising the following steps: (g) requiring selection of a choice option; and (h) requiring a rationale for the selected choice option; and wherein the evaluating step includes the substep of assessing the rationale.
 34. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 33, further comprising: (i) determining a test score for the user's performance in one or more of steps (b), (c), (d), and (e).
 35. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein in step (f) the number of choice options is counted and compared to a predetermined ordering of numbers to determine a level of performance.
 36. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 20, wherein step (f) considers at least one of: a number indicative of choice options in the choice option listing, a level of sophistication of a choice option in the choice option listing, and a number of choice options considered for selecting a most important choice option in the choice option listing.
 37. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 33, wherein step (f) includes the step of forming a decision chain.
 38. An interactive teaching method, according to claim 37, wherein the forming step includes the steps of: comparing the listing of choice options to a predetermined listing of choice options and corresponding code to identify at least one listed choice option on the predetermined listing of choice options and a code corresponding thereto; assigning the code to the listed choice option; comparing the rationale with the listing of results, the listing of goals, and the at least one driving force to identify which of the listed results, the listed goals and the at least one driving force are identified in the rationale; comparing the identified ones of the results, goals and driving forces in the rationale with a predetermined listing of results, goals, and driving forces and corresponding codes to identify the codes corresponding to the results, goals and driving forces in the rationale; and determining the highest code level and the number of code level in the rationale to form the decision chain.
 39. An apparatus for teaching decision making skills, comprising: (a) a display for presenting at least one factual context to a user, wherein said factual context provides a situation wherein one or more possible behaviors of a participant in said factual context is specified by the user; (b) a first collection of one or more programmatic elements for presenting a first presentation, on said display, requesting the user to specify a collection of one or more choice options corresponding to the at least one factual context, wherein each of said choice options includes one of said possible behaviors; (c) a second collection of one or more programmatic elements for presenting a second presentation, on said display, requesting the user to specify, for each of at least some of said choice options, a corresponding collection of results in including both user perceived positive and negative results, wherein each result R is for identifying a condition that the user believes has a likelihood of occurring if one of said choice options, for which said result R corresponds, occurs; (d) a third collection of one or more programmatic element for presenting a third presentation, on said display, requesting the user to specify, for each of at least some of said choice options, a corresponding collection of goals that are relevant to said choice options, wherein each goal G is for identifying an end state achieved by the participant when effort by the participant is directed toward having one of said choice options, for which said goal G corresponds, occur; (e) a fourth collection of one or more programmatic element for presenting a fourth presentation, on said display, requesting the user to specify at east one driving force relevant to at least one choice option C of the choice options, wherein said driving force is for identifying a ranking in said goals in said collection of goals corresponding to said choice option C, said ranking being according to a user perceived importance of the goals to the participant; and (f) an evaluator for evaluating one or more decision making related skills of the user, wherein an output from said evaluator identifies whether or not there is a need for remediation in one of the decision making related skills of the user; wherein said evaluator uses at least one of (i) and (ii) following in determining said output: (i) a rationale specified by the user for choosing a preferred one of said choice options, wherein said evaluator determines whether a positive result from at least two of said collections of results are identified in said rationale; (ii) an encoder for encoding a response by the user to at least one of said first, second, third and fourth presentations, wherein said evaluator determines, for a predetermined plurality of decision making reasoning levels, at least one of: a highest level of decision making reasoning in said response, and number of levels of decision making reasoning in said respons.
 40. The apparatus of claim 39, wherein each of said programmatic elements in said first, second, third and fourth collections includes one of: an encoding of an executable statement, and data for supplying to an executable statement.
 41. The apparatus of claim 39, wherein said predetermined plurality of decision making reasoning levels, in ascending order, include: (1) a results level corresponding to conditions that the user believes has a likelihood of occurring if one of said choice options occur; (2) a goal level corresponding to an end state achieved by the participant when effort by the participant is directed toward having one of said choice options occur; and (3) a driving force level corresponding to a ranking in of goals of said choice options, said ranking being according to a user perceived importance of the goals to the participant.
 42. An apparatus for teaching decision making skills, comprising: (a) a network server for transmitting at least one factual context to a user, wherein said factual context provides a situation wherein one or more possible behaviors of a participant in said factual context is specified by the user; (b) a first collection of one or more programmatic elements or transmitting a first presentation, from said server, requesting the user to specify a collection of one or more choice options corresponding to the at least one factual context, wherein each of said choice options includes one of said possible behaviors; (c) a second collection of one or more programmatic elements for transmitting a second presentation, from said server, requesting the user to specify, for each of at least some of said choice options, a corresponding collection of results including both user perceived positive and negative results, wherein each result R is or identifying a condition that the user believes has a likelihood of occurring if one of said choice options, for which said result R corresponds, occurs; (d) a third collection of one or more programmatic elements or transmitting a third presentation, from said server, requesting the user to specify, for each of at least some of said choice options, a corresponding collection of goals that are relevant to said choice options, wherein each goal G is for identifying an end state achieved by the participant when effort by the participant is directed toward having one of said choice options, for which said goal G corresponds, occur; (e) a fourth collection of one or more programmatic element for transmitting a fourth presentation, from said server, requesting the user to specify at least one driving force relevant to at least one choice option C of the choice options, wherein said driving force is for identifying a ranking in said goals in said collection of goal corresponding to said choice option C, said ranking being according to a user perceived importance of the goals to the participant; and (f) an evaluator for evaluating one or more decision making related skills of the user, wherein an output from said evaluator identifies whether or not there is a need for remediation in one of the decision making related skills of the user; wherein said evaluator uses at least one of (i) and (ii) following in determining said output: (i) a rationale specified by the user for choosing preferred one of said choice options, wherein said evaluator determines whether a positive result from at least two of said collections of results are identified in said rationale; (ii) an encoder for encoding a response by the user to at least one of said first, second, third and fourth presentations, wherein said evaluator determines, for a predetermined plurality of decision making reasoning levels, at least one of: a highest level of decision making reasoning in said response, and a number of levels of decision making reasoning in said response.
 43. The apparatus of claim 42, wherein each of said programmatic elements in said first, second, third and fourth collections includes one of: an encoding of an executable statement, and data for supplying to an executable statement.
 44. The apparatus of claim 42, wherein said predetermined plurality of decision making reasoning levels, in ascending order, include: (1) a results level corresponding to conditions that the user believes has a likelihood of occurring if one of said choice options occur; (2) a goal level corresponding to an end state achieved by the participant when effort by the participant is directed toward having one of said choice options occur; and (3) a driving force level corresponding to a ranking in of goals of said choice options, said ranking being according to a user perceived importance of the goals to the participant.
 45. The apparatus of claim 42, wherein said server transmits one or more of said factual context, said first collection, said second collection said third collection, and said fourth collection on the Internet. 